Photo Albums

Election Snippet: Sarah Palin's Supreme Ignorance

My election snippets haven't gone after Sarah Palin in a couple of days, so I think it's time to return to that very fertile ground. This is an excerpt from the now- infamous Katie Couric interview... an excerpt in which Palin was unable to name any Supreme Court decisions, other than Roe v. Wade, that she disagreed with.

The video is loaded with inanities, and I could pick them apart all day. But when I first heard this video, here's what I wanted to scream at the top of my lungs:

I learned about Dred Scott in junior high. The day it was decided is generally considered the bleakest day in the history of the Supreme Court. It was the day the Supreme Court said, "Slavery? Sure!" If you can't think of a single Supreme Court decision that you disagree with, surely you should be able to come up with that one.

I can think of others, too. Plessy v. Ferguson. Bowers v. Hardwick. The one, I can't remember the name of it right now, that said corporations have the same Constitutional rights as people. Just off the top of my head. And I'm not running for Vice-President. I'm not even governor of a state. Hell, I'm not even a lawyer. I'm just a layperson with a liberal arts B.A., gassing on in my blog.

You'd think that someone who was running for the second highest office in the country would know enough about the history of interpretations of the Constitution -- the foundation of the country she supposedly loves so much -- to be able to, you know, think of one.

And I'll say it again: A heartbeat away from the Presidency. The Presidency of an elderly man with at least a 1 in 3 chance of dying in office.

I don't remember the names, but in more recent memory there's the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case that I disagree with. And the one where the SCOTUS weaseled out of deciding whether "under God" in the pledge was constitutional, on a technicality.

Oh, and the one where the SCOTUS told the FFRF that taxpayers don't have standing to sue over whether funding faith-based initiatives with taxpayer money is legal.

I was only able to beat her 2-1. But then again, I'm from Australia, not the USA.

Though if I don't have to give the names of them, I can describe a couple more.

I'd expect anyone who grew up in the US to be able to name more than me - and anyone involved in politics to be able to name 3 or 4 times as many as me. I'd expect someone running for vice president to name a dozen, right off the top of their head.

And for that matter, when asked to name a newspaper or magazine that you read, you should be able to name several on the spot, or explain how else you get your information.

All I'm getting from you is pro-Obama, anti-McCain! If I don't get some anti-Obama or Pro-McCain, then your continued bashing of McCain is going to lose its effect really fast.

Sorry, but you're not going to get that.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again here: This blog is not a mainstream news source, with an obligation to try to be objective. This blog is my blog. I aspire in my political writing to be fair and accurate -- but I do not aspire to be, or pretend to be, objective and non- partisan.

The purpose of my writing about this Presidential campaign is not to present a balanced and objective look at the news. It is to show what a truly disastrous thing it would be for this country if McCain were elected President. It is to persuade people to vote for Obama and not for McCain. Period.

if I write something (or link to something) that's inaccurate or misleading, by all means, please call me on it. But if you want to see anti-Obama or pro-McCain writing, you're going to have to look elsewhere.